Here an interesting one (political parody)

This rip is pretty interesting, and I would lkie to share it with you.

Here the fact:

Here in Canada, Our prime minister (wich is like the president) as an official site. Wich act as news website and is blog (I like the blog idea) and news review from other media...

The sie fetaue lost and lots of text, but with a good table based layout and good css for text.

http://www.paulmartintimes.ca/

But the site was ripped. And the ripper was sued, the origial webmaster claim than images and syle sheet from the otignal website where used.

The ripper lciam than ll contnt is original... hard to belive...

Its clear than the site is a parody, and this has some effect on copyrigth laws... but I belive than a rips like this does not qualify as only as parody since images and code where clearly stloen

http://www.paulmartintime.ca/

Wath your opinion guys ?

cool looking site, i've seen hat sites like that before from ppl, jus copy the site and alter the news, i thinks it's cool

Parodies and comic reps of someones work is void of copyright.

it could be a free template, its pretty simple,

I dont see any content being stolen. Theres no graphics being stolen or anything, so the actually "content" has not been stolen. The idea of the site has been stolen, but thats the whole point, isnt it?

I really dont know, though - thats a good question.

it is interesting - I dunno - it's like the songs of Weird Al Yankovic - are they stolen? the line is the same....

It's not such a difficult site to make (layout wise) so I think the guy who made it didn't see it as a problem - more than likely he figured it is important to look the same because it's a parody...even the name of the site...is it the absolute same code? or did he made his site to look like the one of the primeminister guy?

IMO it's not a rip

and, like I said earlier, Parodies fall under "Fair Use" for copyrighted material, and unless some large material gain is made off of it, is well defended against lawsuit or copyright infringement, eg:

[quote]
I Parody

Parody is a form of creation that imitates a serious piece of work for humorous effect. By its very nature, parody makes use of the copyrighted work of others, and, because the purpose of the new creation is criticism, ridicule or just spoofing, there is tension between the parodist and the owner of the underlying work. Since it is unlikely that the copyright owner will license someone to satirize his work, the parodist must rely on the "fair use" defense if he is sued for copyright infringement where he has made a substantial taking from the underlying work. Because utilization of parodies relies on a defense theory and is not pursuant to any licensing or authorization concept, the filing of copyright infringement claims is not unusual in such circumstances. The fair use doctrine permits "[t]he fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research." 17 U.S.C. § 107. Thus, when used as commentary or criticism, parody is not intended to compete with the potential market of the parodied work and can be defended as a fair use. Not all humorous or critical interpretations of copyrighted works, however, are permissible. Three factors should be analyzed in order to determine whether a parody is permissible.

First, the parody must comment on the original copyrighted work itself. The source of the humor must be in the juxtaposition of the original work and the parody. Parodies which merely utilize a copyrighted work as a vehicle for commenting on other targets are not protected. See examples 1 and 2 below.

Second, while the nature of parody requires the inclusion of some aspects of the original to link the two in the mind of the public, the greater the extent to which the parody diverges from the original, the more likely a finding of fair use. Therefore, the parody should only include enough references to the original in order to 'conjure up' the copyrighted work.

Third, the parody should not usurp the market for the original. It should not be a replacement for the original, but rather an alternative to it in the market. Copyrights are economic rights, therefore it is crucial that the parody not destroy the market value of the original.
[/quote]

soooo.... I would say it isn't a rip, even if they stole all the images and remade them to fit the site.

There was something like this but with the Pope's site. Some guy bought a similar name and made fun of the vatican and the site looked exactly the same.